tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 23, 2013 7:00am-10:01am EST
immigrants with columbia university professor. we discussed the role of the catholic church with former u.s. ambassador to the holy see and author of the global vatican. "washington journal" is next. >> secretary of state john kerry in geneva this morning in hopes .f securing a deal "wall street journal" reporting this morning. and the executive branch positions. president obama heading to the west coast sunday for several fund-raising efforts to benefit congressional party committees. announcing two
different delays of the affordable care act. the enrollment. for 2015 will now start november 2014 instead of the previous planned october date. delaysouncement of these and what you think about the changes to the affordable care act. here are the numbers. "wall street journal" chose this headline to talk about delays.
again, for those delays, we want to get your thoughts on this morning. phone lines are on the screen. to give you a listing of the major timeline for the affordable care act, the october 1 date was when sign-ups began. on november 30 the obama administration set a deadline for fixing healthcare.gov. come january 1, 2014, coverage begins. some of the other options in play right now are march 31, enrollment deadline for 2014 coverage.
again, with that in mind, these delays, and affordable care act overall, here's jerry from columbus, ohio on our independent line. caller: still above ground in my 85th year. a veteran. i'd like to know why the devil does not anybody ever bring out that the only other industrialized country that does not have national healthcare is south africa and they are just 15 years out of apartheid. eddie roosevelt over 100 years ago wanted national healthcare and harry truman in january tony 4, 1949, in the state of the union message said we need to look because of the rising prices of description drugs and medical care, we need to look at national healthcare. this country has let the american medical association and the national association of manufacturers and the chamber of commerce which is supposed to be
call the tunes and they're still trying to call the tune. go, what areyou your thoughts on the announced delays? caller: i'm a political on that. that 40 million people that don't have health care will have health care. host: talk a little bit about why you brought up south africa's situation. because that is the only other industrialized country that does not have national healthcare. every other country has got it. switzerland, germany, austria, france. why don't you guys bring that out? indiana.ve from hello. caller: i agree with the previous color. it is something we all need and we are the only industrialized country other than south africa that does not have it.
it is absolutely something we need. curry up next from ocala, florida. this entire situation with obamacare is a train wreck and a mess. where the president went wrong was he ignored what roosevelt did and what lyndon johnson did in passing social legislation. was aent roosevelt president who finally got social security through after number of people had tried over the years. he did so by going to the republicans. it a higherand percent of republicans voted for social security than did democrats. i am not positive about that, but in a lot of them supported it. lyndon johnson did the same thing with medicare. he frequently said he could never have gotten medicare theed without the help of
senate majority leader who was a republican. obama, instead, chose to cram this down our throats, not one republican participated in it or it must democrats did not participate in it. whatever happened to the president's pledge when he was running for president the first time, to put all bills on the internet three days prior to a vote so we could all read them and try and understand them? he has dropped the ball there, he lied to us, i'm afraid and i don't believe the man is telling us the truth about much of anything. he doesn't care what we think about it or what our ideas might be. out: even asterisk him is "theese items, here washington post" looking at how the states are faring.
new delays being announced. one will affect those that are signing up this year, another moves to sign up date for 2 015 four next november. i'm concerned about -- was paying $220 a month for insurance that covered me pretty well. that is cheap and tennessee. they canceled me and the next thing i found out it was going to cost six and $20 a month or it i made $26,000 a year. .t isn't going to work out ver
you eligible for any subsidies at all? .aller: no nothing has been offered and there's nothing i can find out about heard i get the runaround when i try to go down and see. i don't what to do next. statesville, north carolina, democrats line. for taking my call. my comment is the delay on the affordable care act is, i'm ok with it. the main reason is that it was done on president obama's terms and not the republicans terms. everything i'm seeing so far with all the commentary and every thing else is that basically the republicans want
.verything run by them they want everything to be okayed by them regardless of where it came from and what it's able tohey want to be say it's ok and it's not ok regardless of whether it is good for the country or not. basically, that's what it is. they are upset and mad because they can't call the shots and they can't say when it is going to happen and not happen. all i am hearing is a bunch of whining and crying from republicans. another thing is that i'm really tired of hearing republicans and everyone else referring to this as obamacare. , it is thebamacare affordable care act. please refer to it as such. the present himself referred to it as obamacare. but that aside, what are your
thoughts personally about how the rollout has gone? caller: i knew it was going to be bumpy to begin with. anything that is rolled out on a grand scale of this size is going to have problems. they all have problems. .t is fine this is going to happen and we're going to work through this. i'm just tired of hearing all the republicans whining and crying because they are not happy with it. we are not running it by them first and okaying it. thomas, here's brad from michigan, republican line. you are right, the republicans had nothing at all to do with obamacare and they wash their hands clean of that and it is obvious why. it has been a fiasco and it is going to get worse. most people can afford it.
-- most people can't afford it. most hard-working people are going to pay to the notion this. and it will be on their mind every time they open their bill up and look at what they used to pay. is going to cost the democrats the house and the senate, just like it did back when clinton was in office. you going to sweep it this time. you are right. the republicans had nothing at all to do with this. they made sure that everybody knew that. it is coming apart at the seams right now. you can make your thoughts known on twitter as well. the process hasn't gone as he hoped that he hopes americans
are getting more access to health care coverage. here are the president's thoughts. >> we decided to fix a broken health care system and even though the rollout of the marketplace where you can buy affordable plans has been rough, so far about 500,000 americans are ways to gain health coverage starting january 1. costs way, health-care are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years. the president's weekly address. you can see that on the website. here is shelley from lakeland, florida. good morning. i agree with the gentleman from michigan. this program is going to kill persons like us who are just loop collar workers who are living paycheck to paycheck. old and i have- been getting notices that social security retirement which is my only hope for my older years may
not be there. my savings consists of a few dollars in a checking account. i live paycheck to paycheck. i have no health care insurance now. i do not qualify for a subsidy. failure,ngestive heart but are still get up and push myself to work. i get no health care at work. i am a nurse. onee millions being wasted patients that will never get any better, but we still do it. and now obama wants me to get health care insurance. if i could afford it now i would. my health get problems fixed. will go tos affordable care for people that are already eligible.
gloria is from indianapolis, indiana. democrats line. just wanted to call about the affordable care act. the thing i don't understand is i don't know whether the republicans think that we are crazy or we don't understand what is going on or whatever, what they keep saying that the democrats rammed this down the
throats of the people. well, i remember when they were trying to get the act passed, the republicans chose not to deal with it. they didn't want any part of this. it was their own doing. was the affordable care act based on romney's plan. now all of a sudden, when barack does this, then the republicans want to act like they didn't have anything to do with it. it is nothing to do with republicans and all this. they wanted to make the president a one term president and they had already stated that they weren't going to do anything to support him. we are not crazy people we know what is going on. you didn't want this because it it is.mocrat -- way
just live with it. host: gloria, tell us your thoughts not just about the deadlines but about the rollout of the affordable care act. caller: anything that has to do with computers and everything, normally they do have problems. i don't know why everybody is acting like this is unusual. this thing doesn't happen, it happens all the time. even with your cell phone, with anything that has to do with stuff like that, there are always problems. this is just another way to complain about what the president is doing. he is trying to help everyone. i have never seen people that don't even choose to help themselves. they keep saying we don't have, were not then be able to afford it, were not going be able to do this. that is what the subsidies are for. go into the program and see what is out there and see what is
offered. in the and it is going to work out and then they're going to have egg on their face because it is going to work out. david from jonesboro, arkansas. he's on a republican line. hi, this is david rees. how are you doing. it is amazing to me that when a republican put something out the democrats hate it. i remember one of the prime things that george bush did was social security reform. .here was not one democrat one of the most startling thing is i hear the democrats and that.icans say this and i am an attorney. i will never forget as long as i live when harry reid on the floor of the senate during the surge that george bush was
pushing, said the war is lost. i don't know what everyone else thinks, and i don't mean this to be extreme, but that is an impeachable offense. that is a crime against america. can you imagine the american forces in the field? hearing that the leader of the senate said we have lost the war? and i amlly shocked shocked haven't heard other people talk about it. regarding the affordable care act, i think we need to realize president obama is very good at some things and he is not good at others. he is very good at reading a orplate or reading a tablet reading his little things that they put on his speeches. he is good at giving a speech. he is good at empathizing, but he is not good at implementing policy.
if you just take away the speeches and look at the policy, of trillion dollar rollout the first thing he did ended up -- the a million dollars american people have never, not one time, have over 50% not been against it. but even after scott graham one in massachusetts, he change the senate. i will say one thing about obama. here's one of the most dogged individuals and stubborn. he is going to get his way. host: al from cambridge ohio,
independent line, is next. supporter of i'm a the affordable care act. i was able to find a comparable ohio on theere in verge of retirement. thate a report here speaker boehner signed up for the affordable care act yesterday. have you heard this? host: you try to and i don't think he was successful, if i recall correctly. caller: the reports i have is that he was successful, i'm reading it on salon.com. he was able to get on and apply. on the greater budget, --host:
talk about your own experience. how much were you paying before and how much are you paying now? had health care at my employer. i was looking for comparable coverage on the healthcare.gov. our legislature didn't choose the set up in exchange so i had to go to healthcare.gov. i think i did it on october 1 or second. i was just looking for estimates. i won't be able to apply until i start to lose insurance in april of 2014. host: what are you going to pay now? my coverage is 225 dollars per month. on healthcare.gov i found one $209, a silver plan. it is comparable coverage. one of the big things about it for me is that out-of-pocket
here is paulette from opa-locka, florida on the democrat line. he stole my thunder. i was just about to inform the republicans that raynor did sign up. he makes over $200,000 a year and his policy is going to awesome only 200 something per month. it is not good for the american people but it is good for him? come on up mama america, wake up. host: houston, texas, republican line. caller: i'm an 80-year-old black republican. voice award. the democrats must think we are crazy. crammed down our throats with no help from the republicans. did not want to work with the republicans. if you did not want to work with them, how are they going to work with him? every party opposes the other.
i didn't hear anyone on the -- this thing is terrible. systemismantle the whole . just work on that that was wrong. host: we are continuing your calls and the delays that were announced. forfor this year and one 2014 for the 2015 sign up. you can make those calls to the numbers on your screen. a couple other stores. "wall street journal" reporting
next. you're up marshal, texas. caller: isn't it typical of democrats when they can't get something done you have to change the rules. myually, i'm talking about dissatisfaction with the republicans. what they needg to be doing is put it in faster. as soon as he american people realize what this will do, that every premium in the country, they're going to hate this. you're absolutely going to hate this. i was watching c-span last night
and they were having, i don't even know a committee it was. mary landrieu was the chair of it. they had a bunch of small talking people up there about how none of this would affect small business. if you have less than 50 employees this doesn't even affect you, so what are you complaining about? going to raise every premium, ok? yes, that is going to affect every business. host: jimmy, san antonio, texas. the rollout of the aca. i have worked with computers for cryptologyncluding and infrastructure, installation and engineering. the one big problem a lot of people have is the end-user's
computer. cpu andon't update your you don't have enough memory and you're still on a landline, your computer will actually time out. may bet of this trouble because of the end-users. also, if you want to sabotage something you can redirect a webpage and redirect things online. so maybe all this problem is not caused just by the engineers that designed the system, it people whoused by have not upgraded their computers. the allegheny tableau.
here is frederick from mechanicsville, maryland. his other republican line. republicans, democrats, independents, this is a sad situation for this country because where we are heading is socialism. if these people don't start talking about it, nobody is going to know. it is already going to be here and americans are going to have to live with it. you heard the president earlier talking about health care and the rollout of the affordable care act. michael burgess is a congressman from texas. he talks about the affordable care act saying it doesn't match what obama initially promised heard here he is. it is not become clear that the reality of the president's health care law does not match what he promised. a website that was launched before it was finished, waves of cancellation letters, the sticker shock of high premiums coupled with ever increasing deductibles. many families are now learning
that they may not just lose her plans, but if they like the doctor they may lose her doctor to. they may lose her doctor because in part there is already a shortage of primary care physicians. any of these plans will be so manydoctors last doctors whose majority full have chosen not to participate in the plan. it is a train wreck for doctors and patients. as importantly is a train wreck for the american people. that is congressman michael burgess of texas. john kerry istate in geneva today to participate in talks over iran's nuclear program. running york tiimes" about it says that iran would eliminate the stock of some of its enriched uranium.
again, the secretary of state currently in geneva with those talks. mike is from arizona and he is on our independent line. yes, i like to say that these guys up there in bentington are so hell- against sick people getting health and and people getting help. we pay so much taxes in this country. we give money to people all over the world. we could use those tax dollars here and help the people. always people who oppose held for six people, they have blood on their hands. middle-ee a class person fighting it. he but need help, man. we are the greatest country in the world. people shouldn't die here and lose their homes because they can't get health care.
these guys up there have to start working together instead of constantly opposing a law that is in place. a couple of tweets. john in north carolina says the website will be fixed, obamacare is irreparable. plains, newscotch jersey, republican line. good morning. caller: in president obama's radio address he says a 500,000 people will now be able to get health care. he didn't even mention that 5.5 million have artie lost their insurance because it is too expensive. and tripled. deductibles have gone up. they have doubled and tripled two of my four kids have had their premiums doubled and the disciples raised really high.
people just can't afford it anymore. he redistributed wealth by way andhe health care reform people who liked their plan and their doctor are no longer going them.able to keep it is such a shame and that is not the way it was rolled out. there will be 5.5 million who have to pay so much more. exelon. here is jack from florida, democrats line. i really wish is that of the independent line you would say third-party. fastt wanted to state real that i was a huge obama inporter in my early 20s hear 2007 at 2008. was awarded with a trip to the
inaugural youth ball. something happened along the way . when i look at the aca, i'm 29 years old, i make $500 a week. you take what they're all taxes, now they want to take another 15% of my income? i'm young and healthy and i'm speaking to all of my friends in florida in their 20s and 30s and nobody plans to enroll in the aca. nobody. none of the youths are because they are young, healthy and feel they are invincible. if a young and the youth are not going to enroll, that is the whole idea that the user going to enroll. i just don't see it happening. i see this being a major failure and i don't want 15% more of my barely $25,000 a year income gone. have you even investigated what he plan on the exchange might cost you? caller: i have.
i used a calculator and a silver plan with a $5,000 deductible would be $400 a month. those you talk to of similar age expressed the same concerns echo or do they feel it? caller: aed a lot of people my age don't even know to deductible is. that they with me don't want to enroll because of the deductible. they're young and healthy and feel there is no need. it would rather take the tax penalty than have to pay this amount of money. and then the subsidies a kick in, that is not free money. those coming from somebody else. i suspect you're old enough to be out of your parents plan by now. 29.er: i'm
host: that is jack from florida. fromr: the young man florida to my thunder. i was considered subsidies aren't subsidies on free. they're being charged somebody else. just because a government is going to subsidize is me the money is coming out of thin air. that is my comment, thank you. host: jackie from salisbury maryland, republican line. just want to, my comment is beyond the affordable care act. it is confirming any project that someone, some leader wants to implement. it appears as if they do not understand the huge challenges that the reality of the people who work and the reality, whatever is affected by project,
there are infrastructure problems that cause rocky implementation of new projects. the leaders who want to do these andgs appear to be clueless they don't want to add new employees, they don't want to give us more resources, they just want to add the programs. of course you're not going to and bet in the beginning adaptable to a new circumstance. that is where want to say today. cbs news took a poll of over a thousand adults. the poll taken asks about the president's job approval rating.
dawn is from georgia. he is on the independent line. caller: i'm calling about the health care plan. if everyone would really just listen to obama, of all the presidents we've had in the past 20-30 years, he is the only one that has really addressed the people and what is going on in the white house. obamacare was a trap. what he expected and what he wanted to do was totally different in the republican's eyes. it was a set up. right now, the insurance companies, corporate america and
everybody is sitting back laughing because they have put forth the effort throughout all the time that obama has been in office to try to prove him wrong. now they want to prove he is a liar. so you need to really listen to what the president is really telling you. so john, how is it is set up with the president put forth this initiative on his own? initiativeput forth to try to help the people as far as the health care -- if the insurance companies would work with obama and lower their rates and put everything according to the guidelines, the insurance companies are making billions off of us. we are the people. they're making billions off of us. you tell me that the insurance companies cannot put aside all of their differences and all of the money that they're making to help obama with this? they can do it. host: let's take one more call.
this is lisa from louisville, kentucky. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am an obama supporter but i did find out that the affordable care act is not affordable. i called in for my husband to try to get insurance and with the subsidy he is still paying $292 a month. they are not allowed to ask medical questions, but i tell you what they do ask. the ask if you smoke. if don't ask if you drink. you smoke you are really paying. the way to go is to put everyone on medicare, let them pay the get a premiums and then supplement. that would be cheaper for everyone in the long run. thank you. areasthat all this topic -- that is the last call we will be taking on the topic.
our guest from "the washington post" will talk about this policy. all forms of immigration reform currently on the table are taking the wrong approach. you can find out about it later on this morning. first, to our newsmakers program. morrow, starting at 10:00 heard our guest the representative mac thornberry. he is a vice-chairman chairman of the armed services committee. he talked with reporters about a wide range of things. including possible cuts in pay and benefits for u.s. troops as a cost-saving measure. notion ofort the slowing the rate of a raises and benefits for military personnel? >> i share their concern with the problem. inthe same time, last year
the defense authorization bill, we set up a commission to look at this exact issue of pay and benefits. recently, after having asked for input from the pentagon, they received essentially nothing. no specific proposal from the pentagon's top political leadership, at least. that was really disappointing. for that commission to have a chance to work out there some specific proposals that could then be vetted and discussed and so forth, they needed a starting point from the pentagon. the pentagon has abdicated responsibility for this commission that a lot of us have put hopes and. in. the commission is going to continue to work and we will see what they come up with. we have to look at it not just money,s of how to save we also have to see whether the current pay and benefit system
is effective at getting and keeping top quality folks. just to take one example, we are going to increasingly need top- quality technical folks who can deal in the realm of cyber peerage to do that, we are competing with google and microsoft and all those companies. maybe the current personnel system and the way we compensate retirementa 20 year plan is not what you need to recruit and retain those sorts of folks. my point is, in addition to trying to look at curtailing the long-term costs for the current personnel system, i think you also have to see whether the current system is effect if in the modern day. i think some reforms could well becoming. those reforms in my opinion need to keep the promises we have already made to the people who serve. looking ahead, neck some adjustments to the people who
enter the service and then tell them up front what the deal is. >> washington journal continues. host: good morning. guest: good morning. host: what is he trying to do as far as how he has managed to roll? tost: bernanke is scheduled leave the fed. he's in a stage of trying to understand what his legacy will be. obviously he will be known as a person who helped the country ever to next great depression. he made some very bold decisions in the midst of a financial crisis that helped save the economy. more controversial has been what he has done since. and where he has led the fed. he just gave a speech in which you really try to clear the air
because there has been a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication between the fed how he isrket over trying to ensure that the recovery will be sustainable. he gave a speech in which he said hey, guys, i want to make sure you understand what we're doing. he really try to explain the difference between two of the fed's big policies right now. and itsulus program control of short-term interest rates. says ita program that will probably stay in place for some time. topic, thee overall issue is transparency. upper nike has let the public or at least those in the know know about the fed. guest: historically the fed has been known as a very secretive institution. back when alan greenspan was chair at the fed there were
stores about how investors used to look at the side of his briefcase to determine what he was going to do in the marketplace. those days are over. now the federal reserve has press conferences after its meetings. they issue regular statements. ben bernanke has even met with teachers. he has given lectures to college students. he really try to open up and demystify the fed very the problem with transparency is that sometimes you are also airing your dirty laundry as well. the fed is actually not run by one person. but people associate the fed with ben bernanke. he is not the guy running the entire show. the fed is made up of 19 officials from across the country that form the top ranks of the fed. they all have very different opinions. they often disagree with each disagreementse are being aired more publicly now. that sometimes causes confusion over what the path of the fed's actions will be. want to ask a
question specifically about mr. bernanke and possibly who will replace him, here's your chance to do so. we have a bit of that speech that you are talking about. we will let him talk about what he's doing and then you can comment. guest: all right. time as chairman with the goal of increasing the transparency of the federal policy and of monetary in particular. in response to a financial crisis in a deep recession the fed's monetary policy communications approved a far more important tool and evolved in different ways than i would have envisioned eight years ago. the economy has made significant progress since the depths of the recession. however, we are still far from
where would like to be. consequently, it will still be some time before monetary policy returns to more normal settings. i argue with the sentiment expressed by my colleague janet yellen last week. can today do all we to promote a more robust economy. communication about policy is likely to remain essential element of the federal reserve's efforts to achieve its policy goals. so at least once he said more normal settings and another time he said more normal policy. was he mean by that? the aftermath of the crisis, the fed is had to deploy a number of new tools that they have not used before and that are untested. the fed shapes economy by setting interest rates, short- term interest rates. that is a tool that is very
familiar with and they know how it works. that is a normal setting. but now the fed is using a variety things to help boost the recovery. an $85tion we have billion bond buying program that are mentioned earlier and it is also using something called forward guidance. that is where the fed tries to shape the economy amid influence interest rates simply by speaking about them. for example, the fed has promised that it will not raise interest rates until the unemployment rate reaches at least 6.5%. just by saying that is giving investors assurance that these easy money policies are going to be around for a while. so therefore interest rates will mean even lower. whether or not that works, that is what the fed is testing right now. it is hoping to one day not have to use these additional tools thato back to the tool
they're familiar with. host: it seems like a total seachange as far as what is going on today. guest: sometimes they're been surprised by the reaction in the markets to the things that they have said. earlier in the summer, the fed had to indicate that he could pull back its bond buying program and start to reduce the level of purchases. markets freaked out over this. plummet andks yields rise. yet interest rates go up as much as a percentage point. that was exactly the opposite reaction that the fed wanted the markets to have heard the fed has been trying to say when we finally reduced our stimulus the reason being because economy is getting stronger. but what the market heard was,
we are not sure these programs are working, we want to get out there that made investors really nervous. there's been this miscommunication, this misunderstanding between the fed and the markets that has had big impact for homeowners, car buyers and businesses. the fed is trying to figure out how to manage that transition? how to manage your communications? host: here is a reuters headline from yesterday. when investors feel that stimulus is going to be around for longer. of time, that makes them -- that rally.cks bernanke attempted to ease the markets into the idea of one day our stimulus will go away, but it won't be the end of the world. brian from salt lake city, utah. you're on the independent line.
china won't buy our debt. ben bernanke, just fly a helicopter over and dump money on it. the new gal is going to do the same thing. hyperinflation is coming, people. get ready. host: i will follow-up with a tweet from sea of tranquility. guest: the current level of inflation is at the lowest level since 2009. the policy could lead to inflation down the road. that is one of the big debates. as a mentioned earlier, the fed is made up of 19 officials of many different viewpoints. several officials within the fed
, the head of the richmond fed, these are folks who raised the very same concerns and are worried that the cost associated with the fed's program are too great and outweigh the benefits. right now they remain in the minority. as a caller mentioned, the likely successor to ben she has janet yellen, been one of the most vocal supporters of the fed's easy money policies. they are likely to continue. but this course of critics has hashis chorus of critics increased as well. meeting, theyeach release a statement. a very carefully worded statement about what they decided to do at the meeting. who voted for and who voted against it. the statements are public and on the federal reserve's website
heard federal reserve.gov. after every other meeting, ben bernanke yields a press conference where people like us get to ask him questions. but he has really helped increase a level of conversation level of discourse about what exactly the fed is doing. he is always asked a range of questions for how long will he stay in office to questions about monetary policy. host: do have to be an economist to understand this? aest: interestingly, i did little experiment myself where i ran some speeches from bernanke, do apan and janet yellen readability score to see the level of writing. what i found is that to understand bernanke or greenspan speeches you have to have a college education. bernanke's is the most difficult to understand and ranks at a grade level 16.9 attribute
college graduate. greenspan was a little lower and you only need a high school education. first i would like to complement chairman bernanke for doing a wonderful job on the dallas according to the federal reserve, the economy took a $14 trillion hit. by providing liquidity as it happened with qe2, they are gradually working their way back. hopefully in the next 3-5 years this will be all taken care of. they have helped out the corporations and the banks and they have divided zero percent interest, but it is not time they have to work on the other hand where the consumers don't 20, 30 and 35%
guest: certainly the impact on consumers is one that is very important as we mentioned before some consumers have been seeing mortgage rates increase because of the volatility of the fed's decision because of the miscommunication in the market. and one thing that the fed has said is that the way to help the people who are at the bottom, the people who don't have a job, people who may not own homes, who may not own stock, is by ensuring that the ecovery itself is sustainable. what happens is 50% of homes not owning stock, so the percentage. host: bill on the republican line. aller: good morning.
rising tide will raise all boats except most middle class and poor people don't own a boat. isn't it really true that 85 billion a month is 18 enormous amount of money over $1 a year? and that this really constitutes a bailout of wall treet? the average american isn't seeing any trickle down. the federal reserve has been in effect for 100 years, happy birthday federal reserve. and in that time inflation has taken the value of the dollar, w you need 23.7 dollars -- $23.70 to buy what $1 used to buy. whenever inflation and hyper inflation is mentioned, all you
get is, inflation isn't too bad right now. the real risk of what the fed is doing is putting our economy on heroin. guest: one of the things that is challenging for the fed is that even though it has launched a bevy of new weapons in the fight against the economic recession, it's tools are still quite blunt. it can control or help shape the macro economy but has a tougher time influencing the microeconomy. so that even though it may try to lower its benchmark interest rate, again, that trickledown effect, it takes some time to work through and may not even occur at all. so the fed is less able impacting such as the long-term jobless rate, such as the
african american unemployment rate, less able to impact the fallout from foreclosures. o that's putting them into a tricky situation so yes they are pulling the levers of the economy but they don't have all the specific small tools in order to fix the problems. what the fed -- we've got a problem in washington as well. the fiscal situation that the country is facing is certainly not helping the economic recovery, the sequester, the government shutdown. so those things are providing head winds to the economy at the same time the fed is trying to goose the economy. so you have these two forces counter acting each other. >> host: what benchmarks does he have to see? guest: that is really the trillion dollar question that the caller has mentioned. one of the fed officials said he could estimate the program expanding to be $1.5 trillion
by the end of the day. what they've set is something very vague. they're looking for substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market. what does that mean? exactly. so at first that's what they were saying, a low unemployment number. but the problem is the unemployment rate has been fall not necessarily because people are finding jobs but because people are leaving the workforce. not the situation they wanted to
is it fair to say that it's a skewed picture, what we see now is only influenced as far as what the fed reserve and once you take that out it could drop the prop, so to speak? guest: that's something that's a concern and something we saw happen in the summer when the fed started to talk about taking the first step toward what they call more normal policy. that's why the fed has been trying to do a lot of communication around what the exit will mean and what the step will mean so the markets don't freak out. again, the goal -- and he reiterated this on tuesday, is that when they stop doing this it's because the economy is doing better. right now the economy is not doing better and it's not doing better for different segments of the economy as well. so that's why there's this debate and that's why there's this confusion because the picture looks very different to
many people. host: annapolis, maryland, independent line. caller: i was just wondering, first of all, how much is it that is the deficit on the books of the federal reserve? secondly, they talk about printing money. i've never understood -- they don't have a printing press there so they buy bonds. they buy bonds i guess treasure rizz and mortgage-backed securities. but how do they do that? i gather it's an entry in their books. and then they use the reserves of the america's private banks to back that up. and in other words, they've used that money that's there so that -- to deal with leverage. the capital requirements of banks at 8 or 9, whatever it is. i guess it's the mecknisms that puzzle me. and when people talk about printing money it's not
literally true. and then how are they going to get out of this? i would appreciate your answer. guest: i think the caller understood it pretty well. number one, the fed's balance sheet is at $4 trillion right now. so that's about three times the size it was before the financial crisis. the other thing that the fed was that the fed is not literally printing money and that's exactly right. it does not have a printing press though it does actually design the currency that we use. so -- however, the fed operates by increasing banks' reserves. so we're no longer on a gold system. our money is just money because we say it's money. so the fed can credit the reserves of banks in order to purchase these bonds or to purchase these mortgage-backed securities and increase the amount of liquidity in the system. that doesn't mean that there's more dollar bills floating around.
part of the problem actually that some people have cited with fed policy is that even though the fed has been increasing -- trying to increase money supply, it's not getting toward the consumer. the fed may be increasing reserves and purchasing these bonds but if banks aren't lending to consumers, if there's no demand from consumers to borrow money to buy a car, television, then the money is not getting through the system and the money is not actually going towards benefiting the economy. so that's actually a concern about where the fed's policies can break down. host: you mentioned dollar bill. joe said guest: certainly, the value of a dollar, we're not seeing the demise of the dollar as some had expected because of the increase in the amount of money that the fed has credit towards banks.
the fed has said that it is not its fault or it is not its responsibility that other countries have pegged the value of their currency to the dollar. however, certainly we understand that in many emerging markets this is a concern that if the dollar falls that could affect curns sis around the world. but the fed has said its primary focus is the u.s. economy and it will do what it needs to do in order to stimulate the economy, promote a stronger recovery, and that ultimately if the u.s. economy is doing well that's the best thing it can do to help countries across the world. ost: democrat's line, texas. caller: good morning. it's the same old deal about the fed. bank of america has done a great job. i'm glad the lady explained that it's 19 people that make these policies. and it all goes back to
republicans and democrats in the congress and senate not creating jobs. so no matter how the policy goes, if we don't have more people coming in to the job market, then none of those policies are going to work. so that is what we need to do. and not people come on and start criticizing republicans, democrats, but work together. host: thanks. guest: one of the challenges for the economy has been exactly what this caller talked about, the number of people who are getting jobs and the number of people in the workforce. we talked a little bit earlier about the decline in what's called the labor force participation rate. part of the reason for that is demographic. there's fewer people in the workforce because america is aging, more people are etiring, more people are going to school instead of going straight into the workplace. so they're demographic and sort of longer term reason force the
decline. but there's also a troubling trend is that a rot of people are leaving the workforce because they simply become so discouraged about their possibilities of finding a job so they say never mind. and that is something that is becoming a real problem for the economy. those people who would like to have a job don't have one. the longer they stay out of the workforce, the more likely it is that their skills will erode, that their networks will shrink and it becomes harder for them to find another job. they sort of get stuck in a cycle of unemployment that is very dangerous for both them and the economy. host: karl is from pennsylvania. republican line. aller: hello to your financial reporter. i was just thinking here watching this federal reserve, i think the pot is boiling so darned much that they can hear it all the way over in china. look, the clintons cooked the
book. they got caught. they're still around. she may be our next president for all we know. fannie and freddie mea, those cooked the books and gave away unsecured loans to thousands of people. they're still around and guess what those bogus loans turn ut with the banks and now the banks that took those loans and then tried to pass them out are being sued by the same federal government that forced them to take those loans. that's billions and billions of dollars. this economy is -- if we ever go straightened out those books in washington, d.c. -- there is so much red ink there that we will all die of a heart attack here. guest: one of the thing it is caller brings up is sort of cooking the books and this idea that the fed is beholden to the executive branch. that was actually sort of true history, and in past it
wasn't necessarily as independent as it is now. but now it is actually a politically independent institution. so it is not beholden to the executive branch, it doesn't carry out order from the president or secretary of the treasury. they take great pride in the fact that they are independent. nd as i mentioned earlier, they have been quite vocal in sometimes criticizing congress and criticizing the fiscal policies in the country and saying, you guys are right now holding back the recovery as opposed to helping it move forward. in some way it is fed sees itself as sort of the last man standing in trying to help save the recovery. and that's -- they consider that their burden because congress is not doing its job. so the idea that the fed is not
politically independent, while that might have been true historicically at times is not the case now. host: have you ever seen ben bernanke push back against the president directly? guest: i can't say i've seen him in a shouting bhatch but he has at the -- match but he has testified several times that these short-cut austerity is not the best for the economy, that congress and the executive branch should focus instead on longer terms solutions to the problems of the deficit. so that's what he said in public testimony, et cetera. and other members of the fed have also made similar calls. host: janet yellen, how independent is she as far as her policies and thinking and how does she differ from ben bernanke? guest: they're quite similar. janet is a little more forceful, she is much more likely to make her case within the fed and among the if he
had's -- fed's centers than ben bernanke. but she has been one of the supporters of the fed's stimulus program and has been one of the architects of the fed's attempts to increase its transparency and set numerical goals for things like inflation. she does, however, have some political ties. she is was the head of the council economic advisers under president clinton. i believe that ben bernanke also served at one point in his career as well. so she was -- she did have some role in the previous administration. but she has never been quite a political animal. in fact, during her nomination process when the president was deciding who to pick, the rap against her was that she wasn't part of the inner circle. she wasn't his first choice because she had not been the close adviser to him that the president's other pick had been
who is larry summers who had been treasury secretary. so janet yellen is someone who grew up in an academic environment. she spent many years at the university of california in berkeley. she also taught at the school of economics and harvard. she was primarily someone from the academic side who then foraed into public policy later in her career. next, dayton, ohio, independent line. caller: i heard her say there's like 19 people in the federal reserve and i have two questions. are these all ceo's of corporations and stuff? guest: no. they are not ceo's of orporations.
caller: i don't know if you know anything about germany's economy. i hear a lot about socialism in this country. but with corporations and wall street making all the money, i've found out the g.d.p. of this country means nothing to the workforce out here and wall street, if it goes up like it is right now, that does not help the workforce out here because we have lot so many jobs. over the last two decades. and i've seen now that germany on all the multinational companies, they take the profits made overseas and like alaska they give all the germans a check every year. i don't want anything given to me. but when you take the jobs of this country -- and i'm all for helping people around the world but this isn't like wall street can make all the money. guest: companies have seen stronger earnings and particularly multinational
companies. one of the concerns about income inequality in america is that the gains on wall street driven in part by record companies sitting on record amounts of cash are not trickling down. and one of the reason is that the workers and a lot of employees are overseas. and so what that is contributing to is something that people call sort of the bar belling of the american workforce where the middle has gotten skinny and the top has gotten very large and the bottom end has gotten very large. but this sort of middle jobs are no longer in america the levels at which they once were. so that certainly is a concern. you do see a disconnect in the way that multinationals are performing and their presence here in the u.s. host: the caller asked about if ceo's were the head of the 19. who comprises them? what's their background
generally? how would you define them? guest: the top ranks went to two part. there is the federal reserve board of governors based here in washington and those are appointed by the president. ben bernanke, janet jellen, et set ra. and then there are 12 radio serve bank presidents so there -- reserve bank presidents. so in california, kansas city, st. louis, dallas, all across the country. and the heads of those banks are chosen by a sort of complicated mix of a board of directors, which do i clude ceo's but also includes some input from the federal reserve board of governors as well. so the folks chosen sort of run the gamut. many are academics. janet yellen was the head of the federal reserve bank in san francisco. the head of the federal bank in
minneapolis was sort of a wonder kid who finished college at 16 or something look those lines. but they also are taken from banks as well to ensure that there is a representation from the banking center. the federal reserve is also in charge of supervising banks, both community banks as well as some folks with a history of working at larger banks, such as geithner when he was head of the federal reserve and bank of new york. so there is a diverse group that includes academics and industry. but they are not people who sit i think what the caller was suggesting is people who sit on the head of goldman sachs, for example. that's not quite how it works. though they do try to make sure that they have representedation from sort of all the sectors that they oversee. host: richard from kansas. democrat's line. caller: what's the policy
reserve's been like investing in infrastructure and scientific research? instead of worrying so much about budgets? caller: i certainly if you have fiscal policy and monetary policy aligned and both were aimed at creating jobs i think that would be a great thing for the economy. i believe that there was an analysis done that said that fiscal policy this year is expected to lower growth by something like three quarters of a percentage point and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs. so certainly there is an impact. what the fed and private economists have been hoping is that once we clear sort of this fiscal turmoil, hopefully by next spring, hopefully even sooner than that, we'll have to see, is that the economy will sort of been able to take off.
we've actually been surprised by how well the private sector has been doing. we thought particularly in october when we had the government shutdown and there was a lot of uncertainty, we didn't know if we would reach the debt ceiling, we thought that would have a negative effect on job growth and consumer spending but we have seen the opposite. job growth in october was quite strong, 200,000 jobs a month. one of the highest numbers we've seen this year. and consumer spending was pretty good even though consumer confidence had fallen. whether or not this was just a blip, whether or not these numbers will hold up once we get november's results we'll have to see. but the early indications are letting us cross our fingers and hope. host: and we face a second year of sequestration next year? guest: there should be another round of cuts unless there's something decided within the continuing resolution talks under way now. line.norman, republican
good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the tie to the tary bit corn that we hear so much about. host: so you want to find out about bit coin. guest: not one of my areas of expertise but certainly something that the fed has looked at and is continuing to monitor to ensure that -- the fed is responsible for stabilizing currency so it's something looking at but it's not my area of expertise. host: we had a hearing about it this week. we're talking about digital currency in this day and age of
policy making. guest: it goes back to this idea that money is money because we say it's money. and so there's a real sort of psychological piece to that that i think is really fascinating. and i think that bit coin is an example of the way people barter and trade. it sort of reminds me of a story about what currency is used in prisons. people use cans of mack rell in order to puchass items, et cetera. so there's no limit to what we can use in order to exchange goods. host: independent line. caller: i think everybody's sort of hit the nail. the reason there is no inflation is simply due to the fact that none of this money has made it to the consumer it's all being pumped into the markets. they've created a situation where all this money is making it into the equity markets. but by far the biggest ben
. ctors are people and if this was bernanke's doing, it's not been done before. if this works and doesn't have bad consequence, then he's a perpetual money machine. guest: you made a good point about why inflation currently is low. again, we mentioned that there are concerns within the fed that inflation could rise in future years. but right now there is a recognition that it is at one of its lowest points. part of that is because the economy is weak so there's weak consumer demand and weak inflation. and there's now been some discussion amongst the tom ranks about whether the fed should increase its stimulus because inflation is too low. so the fed on one hand fights high inflation but on the other hand it wants to fight inflation too low as well.
so there's been push among officials to say, hey, inflation is too low. we should be doing something about that as well. host: let's take one more call. delaware on our democrat's line. caller: good morning. i would like to make a statement in reference to your guest's response to the interest rate. the redundancy of the policies started with greenspan. the intreth rate has got to be capped at around 10%. that would bring about at least a 2% increase in the overall economy redistribution of funds. it is simple but all this that she's dealing with is theatrical not practical. the economy needs a cap on the interest rate to keep the banks
from continuing to act freely under whatever areas of development they want to do. they need to be controlled. the federal reserve is not doing this. the congress is not doing this. and the american people are enslaved by the interest rate. guest: once again the federal reserve does not set directly consumer interest rates but it certainly is a part of it. there actually has been legislation from congress and attempted regulation by other consumer agencies over the interest rates that credit card companies and other lenders charge to consumers. and there was actually a really big push in around 2009 a few years ago to sort of stem the tide of rising fees, rising rates, et cetera, as consumers
face a lot of difficulty paying off their bills. those efforts known as the credit card act have helped lower the amount of fees for consumers who are riskier. however, there was some backlash against that because what the banks said was that we have to charge these higher fees to some consumers because they're risky. and that allows us to to provide consumers who are in good standing lower fees and lower services. then the banks have to cap its fees on risky consumers, they then said we have to raise our fees on consumers who are in good standing. so there was some rebalancing of the way that credit card companies and other lenders priced debt to consumers that was a sheft in the industry but some folks say it's worth it because folks at the bottom of the barrel were facing a hard
time and being saddled with debt they could never dig their way out of. host: is janet jellen a sure bet to become the head? guest: never say sure, but as sure as you can get with this congress particularly because of the changes particularly to the filibuster rules. but even before then, she had significant support from republicans including tennessee senator bob corker. she is -- her pathway is quite clear toward confirmation. we're estimating that vote will take place after thanksgiving. host: has ben bernanke hinted about what's next for him? guest: he has not exactly hinted. he was asked on tuesday whether he will be at more national ball games next year. he is a big baseball fan. he said that he has been with the nats when they were losing and winning. he will be there no matter what. but we don't know what his next step will be. host: sounds like he will be a
washingtonen though. thank you. guest: thank you. host: coming up we'll have a discussion about immigration policy. our next guest suggests one way to change is to have states compete to bring in illegal immigrants and work in those states. later, ambassadors serve all over the world but what's it like to a an ambassador at the vatican? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
then the captions explain them. so i had a vision of high school students flipping hrough and loving history. host: our next guest joins us from new york. with the council of foreign relations, their international economic senior fellow. also a professor at columbia university. thanks for joining us. guest: thank you. i'm delighted to join you. host: you have a recent op ed in foreign affairs magazine called a kinder gentler immigration policy. could you give us a seps of what you make of current efforts here on capitol hill when it comes to immigration policy? guest: i think it's a very good
idea to have something like that for the people whom you are going to benefit, actually. i don't want to knock the idea that the thing is entirely useless but the whole thing is predicated on the assumption that somehow you can get rid of illegal immigrants. and therefore, what we want to do is come up with a set of penalties and incentives which will somehow reduce the influx of new illegal immigrants and will somehow get rid of the stop of illegal immigrants. and i don't think that those are possible feasible objectives. and for the very simple reason that each time we try and do something like this, at the washington level, things really get worse for the illegal immigrants and we don't really gain anything in terms of what is commonly known as controlling our borders. and the main reason is that we have a right brain-left brain approach to illegal immigrants. the right brain says they are
immigrants and therefore we should be kind to them. we should be considerate to them. but the left brain says oh but they're illegal and therefore we believe in the rule of law and therefore we should be unkind to them. and it's like a bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. and we go from one to the other. and the democrats who generally are in favor of being kinder actually wind up having to make all kinds of concessions to get a comprehensive immigration reform in washington through the legislative process. so they wind up imposing all kinds of terrible conditions at the border in terms of disruption of lives of people internally to massive deportations, massive border expenditures to bring the doubting thomases on board and it really doesn't deliver anything. because we tried that last time with the immigration reform control act of 86 and we tried exactly the same tact 86 and
look where we are at now doing the same things all over again and it's not going to produce any results other than deterioration in the conditions of the illegal immigrants. host: border control being one thing but what about some proposals that would put some on a pathway to legalization? guest: i think the problem there again is that many people are not going to be able to use that pathway. for the very simple reason that today if you say because we're making concessions to the opponent of such legalization, they're saying it's going to be a protracted process. there are all kinds of restrictions going to be imposed by people being able to do it. people also looking at the situation will say look if it's going to take 10 years to get through the process we know through president obama's behavior that through executive action you can null if i whatever you promise.
also, the opponents may get into the congress and then may withdraw these things. so either you do it very quickly or you don't do it at all. my prediction is that no more than about half at most of the estimated illegals, stop of illegals which is at 11 million, not more than half will take advantage of it. and this is the situation in 19 86 when we also had the amnesty, as you remember. at that time 3 million out of an estimated 6 million chose the option. the others refusesed to come out. and today they're protected by their ethnic counterparts of trying to be tougher with the illegals who are really here you can't really do that because immediately there's the problem of the ethnic counterparts going to the political and saying look we're not going to be able to -- the washington cannot really enforce draconian measures
against us so we're not going to come out into the open and -- if you want to call it. it is amnesty but with restrictions, and we call it legalization process. they're not going to get started on this because it simply doesn't make sense. and about 30% of the people who are actually illegal in some form or the other, many studies show that about 30% actually manage to become legal through marriage and all sorts of existing provisions, and so the compulsion to come out like this is going to be meaningless and i do think that there's also politics involved here. i myself am a democrat as you know, and we want a legalization process which ultimately results or immediately results in some stage in the people being able
to vote. that automatically divides the republicans and the democrats because the democrats expect these people to be voting for them. the republicans to some extent oppose the legalization process in the sense of reaching citizenship because they think the votes will go the other way. host: i apologize for interrupting. i want to make sure the callers get a chance to talk to you as well. before we do let the callers talk to you i want to get a seps of your op ed, the kinder gentler immigration policy. here's a line that you can
expand on. you say that the united states should stop attempting to imgrate illegal immigrants. principal among them would be a shift from a topdown approach to a bottom one letting states compete for illegal immigrants. could you talk about that last part of that. guest: i think the implication which i was saying so far was basically that it is impossible to think of a suitable way in which washington top down approach will work. it didn't work in 86. it is not going to work because it is even more difficult now to get it through the congress. so what we have to do is think in terms of being able to do something which actually works outside of washington. that is the principle basis. and that means we have a possibility of vast states like alabama and arizona which are
actually doing something, which need the labor but which are not able to do anything except drastic draconian things against the illegal immigrants. states like new york, from which i'm talking, and california has turned into one like that in a big way. so we have bad states and good states. now, the bad states are going lose labor if they keep enacting legislation which is icenses , like drivers l the ability to send children at school. those states are going to lose labor because illegal immigrants just simply avoid them when they're coming across the desert to talk about the rio grand border or they simply leave these states and go to the better states. labor is required to be there because we need the illegal
immigrants. we need the immigrants. the effect is to shift the political equilibrium in the states towards reducing the badness of their legislation. and you see a lot of evidence of that in arizona, alabama, et cetera. businesses turning around joining the lawsuits against the draconian legislation. so that is what i call race to the top or towards the top. the bad states through competition for labor will in fact be improving the legislation and that actually is going to help improve the humanity with which we treat immigrants. nothing is required from washington for this. host: richard from wisconsin, republican line. go ahead. caller: my wife is an immigrant and she came to this country in
1960. i don't understand why the illegal ones in this country our president seems like he wants to give them a free ride. and my wife never did become a citizen. now she's 82 and would like to be a citizen and they want to charge her $600. and we can't afford it. and i don't understand why our president can give these people a free ride. host: go ahead. guest: i think you put your finger on a real problem which we have with washington handling this sort of problem. because exactly as you said, a lot of people feel that here are illegal immigrants who violated the law and who are going to be open, or given the
right to have a legalization process, where yazz there are a lot of people like your wife who are already here and have not been given this right. more than that, there are a lot of people, millions of people who legally are now waiting their turn. so they think this is a case of unfair allocation of rights to the illegal immigrants. so i think if we're going to rely on the washington doing it, this conflict between being nice to immigrants, illegal immigrants, and the rights of the people who actually waited in line and are waiting patiently, that is what we call a problem. i think that makes it difficult. spain has an amnesty but they don't have it through quickly because they don't have the problem we have of millions of people cued up. and that equity problem is really what bothers.
so what i'm thinking of is a situation where we take it out of the hands of washington. it's continuously from the -- i sympathize with your point of view about your wife. she should be i think we need some legislation to make her immediately accessible to citizenship. i think it's atrocious that she's not actually been given the right to do that almost automatically. host: there's a tweet. guest: i think that's a very good idea in my opinion. and i think we really need to ave something which is shorter -- which is short of the actual issuance of citizenship. because a citizenship is not really what people want. when i came to this country years ago, i was given a greed
card by my university. at that time it was easier to get them. and i -- looking at the there was no distinction between green card holders and citizen. the only thing you could do duty.r less was a at was a benefit rather than -- you could offer them a green card, or call red cards, to distinguish them from the normal green card. and i think that would be sufficient to help a lot of people. but we democrats unfortunately
want it -- we want to give them not just the red card or green card, whatever you want to call them, we also want them to be citizens. i think that's where we really have to step back and say we could really help these guys come out of the shadows, have respectable lives, have most of the rights which citizens have, but not the citizenship. because that citizenship is really what we want as democrats in order to get the vote. and the republicans oppose it because they think they will lose the vote. and i think this is where the numbers of the matter lies in my view. we could really help the illegal immigrants without offering them citizensship and i think we should move in that direction. host: independent line, california. caller: everything i've heard out of your mouth is a bunch of hog wash. you don't live in the area where they are not in the
shadows. they keep saying 11 million. we have more than that in southern california. they've overcrowded our schools. when they came here with work orders, they came, did their jobs, went back. they didn't bring their whole flipping families that we have to educate. they cost california over $10 billion a year. while they send $50 billion a year back to mexico. we're supporting a situation that is against our laws for one thing. we have no -- it seems like the people in washington have no respect for our laws. host: go ahead. guest: i think -- i sympathize with your kshes but i think the facts are that actually the
immigrants are making a contribution to the tax revenues rather than subtracting from them. this is a perception which many people have including yourself. but i would simply say this is one area where in the article which we couldn't get into that, i said there are many ways in which we could actually work with these misperceptions like you have about how much they're costing us and have the mexican government, for ample, ease those concerns regardless of whether they are actually justified or not. one of the things i propose in there is that the mexican government ought to make a contribution, however, to the education and health care expenditures in california, which is where you live. and other parts with large
concentrations of the mexican illegal immigrants. so that people like you feel that, look, mexicans are also making a contribution. so just insped of sponging off our people and letting us do all the lifting of the heavy weight on this. so that would be very helpful. again, people are crossing the desert, going through the ratches. occasionally they slaughter a cow, they mess up things. there's no way in which the ranchers who are affected can take these people to court for a tort claim. so another thing i propose is that the mexican government should set up a tort fund where you can take your complaint and many of the complaints are exaggerated of course as i'm sure you understand because one bad story leads to, good god, everybody is being affected. but let them go before a tribunal that we set up, jointly, if you'd like, where these claims of damaging are
assessed and if found credible then we actually release some funds. so there are a variety of ways in which the countries can actually allay your concerns about how much the -- their own people are costing us and try and ease the hostility which otherwise would spread, like in some areas, like your question itself was suggestive of the kind of resentment and hostility you feel about this situation. host: what -- one viewer gives the suggestion guest: i'm not in favor for one reason which is the more restrictions and constraints and liabilities you impose on this process of getting them out of the shadows and giving
them green or red cards, preferably as soon as possible, that bad process is actually -- makes it less and less attractive for these people to emerge from whatever shadows they're in right now. some of them would like to be coming out into the open, many of them are in favor of these kids of ideas. but the more difficult you make it, the less likely it is that they will find it advantage tages to do so. so in my opinion this is the left brain-right brain problem. the people opposed want to put in more constraints and that makes it very difficult to come up with anything very sensible in washington. and so i'm thinking of ways in which we can really move away from washington where these problems of the left brain-right brain are so dominant that we have not since 19 86 been able to pass a single piece of legislation. and even now i'm not sure
whether we will. but my worry is that even if we do it will be done in such a way that it will not make any real difference to the amount of illegal immigration we get. and at the same time it's going to make life more and more difficult for illegals. and that is certainly not an american value. it just seems to me if these people are going to be here regardless, whatever we had do we had better learn to treat them with humanity. host: talking about immigration until 9:15. ohio, democrat's line you are next. guest: i find this demonization and this harsh rhetoric on the i just g is just -- totally -- it's unnecessary, unwarranted. could you explain perhaps about the economics of these people coming in. it seems to me that these
people are taking jobs that are low-paying, you know, unpleasant jobs that americans wouldn't take, for example in the -- in michigan in the apple orchards, the fruit orchards, they had a labor shortage again this year. this curious about resentment of the people doing these very poor jobs that are poorly paid that americans won't do. guest: i think he is right to raise that question. one way to react is just say that actually when you look at a job, you have to look at it not just the wage which you pay but also whether americans are willing to take that job at that wage. so i give an example.
if i have in my classroom since i'm a professor, if people come and clean up after you've given your lecture probably get about $10 an hour. but if you were to tell me to do it at $10 an hour, i'm not going to take that job. i'm an american since 91. but if somebody comes and says, would you do it for $100 an hour? i say of course i'll cancel my appointment with c-span and go and do that job. but the point is will anybody be able to afford to pay me that $100 pay? of course not. the jobs will not even exist at that price. so i think we have to really think, when people say imgrants are taking away our jobs, we have to laugh at the fact that we are not willing to do those jobs at those prices. so you're absolutely right in making that remark. so i think a lot of people say,
oy, they are taking away jobs. these people are not taking away jobs. the jobs simply would not exist at the prices at which we are willing to do them. host: from texas on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. the whole argument about how they're contributing by working and paying in our tax system. that's our kids' first jobs. we need them to get used to working. and they start out young and they pay taxes, too, when they have jobs available. but they don't have no jobs because they're getting took over by illegal immigrants. and those aren't the jobs that our kids won't do. those are jobs our kids are looking for and cannot find. supposed to is keep us from being invaded. they haven't done that. maybe they need to make conditions better in mexico so
people will quit running from there. but we're the ones footing the bill and our kids are the ones paying the price. i don't understand how you all don't understand that. and our kids spend their money here. they don't send it back there. guest: i think this is the same problem that you get in relation to the discussion of the minimum wage that most people on your side of the street in the argument think that somehow it's really the kids versus ordinary people who want those kinds of jobs. kids are part of the problem. but they're part of the problem today in a very different way where from what immigration really gets sort of involved in. we have had in the last -- since the 2008 crisis a particularly bad situation of unemployment. there are a whole lot of things
i think the previous program was dealing with that issue to some extent. i think there, we cannot make policy on the basis of the assumption that somehow this kind of macro crisis and the matter of unemployment which we now see -- which is hopefully beginning to be reduced -- but that will continue frer. if it was true i think one would need a very different kind of mindset to deal with that situation which would involve trade, immigration, a variety of issues. what you do about technological change, how do you accommodate that. but that's a whole set of things which you want to address. and i think you ought to worry about that a little bit. but we are pulling out of it. so we cannot make policy on immigration trade et cetera on the basis of what may be a five-year phenomenon or maybe six years, because we have traditionally been able to
absorb and need large quantities of foreign labor, which has always been the case. also on trade where similar issues are raised we have had the same problem that we really have been now some people worry about outsourcing. but we have to have imports to otherwise our products would not be up to snuff. it is it is interconnected. to worry about the kids getting employment, i think it is too narrow of a focus. to be't let our kids doing those kinds of jobs. totality ofk at the youthful employment, it's a much broader question than the way
you are phrasing it. viewer makes a statement saying, a poorly paid job is bad because market forces, including a supply of illegal immigrants. guest: i don't think low wages are because of illegal immigrants. illegal immigrants did not exist, or immigrants properly do not haveey anything happening like that in a significant way. even the foreign bill gives the union's the right to decide how many people come in. i don't think we have a situation where people are simply able to come in and take because the jobs do not exist at the prices which
we americans would want, except in the case of drastic unemployment. i was distinguishing between the current five years or so, which have been pretty drastic when it comes to unemployment. we have an open economy. we do not want people doing jobs that are really low-paying jobs. pretend that those low-paid jobs exist because of illegal immigration in the sense that we would otherwise be able to raise the wages they're. there,aise the wages people can't afford to pay those wages. look in terms at the totality of what would happen if we did not have immigrants doing these jobs. those jobs simply would not exist. host: another scenario off of twitter.
if you are saying, if for going to open the floodgates of immigration again, why can't we impose a limit on unskilled versus highly educated? guest: in many cases, we do need .he unskilled people this is the cover of the book .'m writing on this subject at then't build a fence border. we don't have any illegal labor available to build up the fence to keep out the illegal people. you have contradiction to worry about. we do need the labor in many of these states. we cannot afford to have that labor at the high wages. is where jerry is
located, on our independent line. not concerned with anybody becoming a citizen. the only thing i would like to see the government do is make the that i paid into government for 40 years and when i retire, i'm looking to get what i paid in or a portion of it. i want the illegal citizens to 15 years before they're allowed to get any benefits. together, ill tied don't care who is a citizen. i just don't want my money being paid out to people who come over and have not paid in. good point.s a very to modify what you're saying, i think we have to recognize that studies show that illegal
immigrants are paying taxes. they pay when they buy things in the marketplace. their salaries are being deducted because employers who hire them do pay in taxes and social security and all sorts of things. when people study how much these people actually have been out,ng in against taking we are a lot better off. it may seem,ive as given the way our tax systems framed, they are not sponging off of us. that is one thing we need to remember. on the other hand, when such misperceptions exist, that is where i was suggesting that -- mexicans, for example, the mexican government could make contributions to handle those misperceptions. host: there is a story in the
"financial times" today. zuckerbergght mark of facebook. why do you think there is such an interest in silicon valley over undocumented workers and the ability to be in the united states? guest: it's a political thing. traditionally we have had separate bins for legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. they are notund, bringing in the refugees, which is becoming a major crisis around the world. from theking one slice illegal immigration, what silicon valley is doing. visas are for people in
engineering,stem, and math. this is what we called ptk's professional, technical, and kindred people. the company have nothing to do with illegal immigration. we don't immigrate illegally. we can get all kinds of visas. there are ways in which we can do it. if we come in illegally and get caught, the consequence would be enormous. we don't want that on rcv -- our cv. you might ask, why are we doing this as part of illegal immigration reform. we can bring in unskilled people and have guest worker programs, but that is not what zuckerberg
or bill gates are talking about. they want skilled immigrants to becoming an. that is a separate issue. why is it being brought in here? because the people who are pushing through the comprehensive reform believe that they can mobilize these people's roles in order to have the total bill go through. they're trying to bring in more troops. i think they are lining up any support they can to have the whole thing go through in terms of the illegal immigration part. it is purely a matter of getting more allies. as soon as you try to get to do that, you have also within the stem or ptk, you also have people who are saying, we are engineers and we are unemployed. we shouldn't have this.
it doesn't work exactly the way it was supposed to. i think it was a mistake to bring this lot in, it is better legal immigration bill without it being muddled up with this -- these political considerations. host: here is terry on the democrats' line from florida. thank you. i'm trying to be brief on this now. i want to read something here. great minds discuss ideas. average minds discuss events. people.nds discuss
the speaker, which i have great respect for, has spoken with a great mind, unlike some of the callers who have called in. [no audio] work.se, it won't admirable, the way you are trying to come up with a workable solution to the immigration process situation that is going on. can offer a separate solution myself if you give me the opportunity. just simply have this national id idea that they tossed around in the legislation, work that with ae situation national idea that everybody who
illegal or legal can sign up and get a national id as to their identity and where they are, and so forth, and that will solve the whole problem. i think that's a very good idea which we should be considering quite seriously. when you have things like employer sanctions, it was inevitable that people in our how do you attack an employer for hiring illegals unless you can say that he went through a process by which he was identified as illegal? , if you're discriminating against people who look like me from india or youare from -- hispanic,
have to have an id process. i have lived in this country and england and india. this is one country where my pocket bulges with a number of ids. -- id's. to be able towant give rewards or punishments to people depending on their status , then you have to have an id process. i think we democrats cannot have it both ways. we cannot say we must employ sanctions. identify andle to prove in a court of law that the employer was deliberately disregarding the illegal status of these people.
need to really look at our economy, our society, what is possible. the one thing which we really need to worry about is that this is a country where you could never eliminate illegals from our midst. that is a fundamental mistake of all these legislations, which is that as long as we have restraints in place and people cannot just walk in or swim in, this is inevitable that we have to have these restraints because people want to come here. china, putndia or your finger on somebody's children say, do you want to go to america? they will say, where is the plane and where is the ticket. we cannot afford to dismantle restrictions. illegals are bound to becoming an and using all sorts of ways to come in.
the real problem is -- you can do it by analogy by the movie "the untouchables" -- no matter how many idiots you send out to keep out out opponents, the trucks will keep -- al capones, the trucks will keep rolling in. whatever mix of policies we come up with, we have to allow for the fact that we should not set up obstacles to the id process. just wind up in our even more, not a thing that is a politically viable process to have where we say we will forget about it if you are
legal or illegal. we have got to think of things that are really feasible. feasibility requires that we accept id cards exactly as you suggested. host: steve is on the republican line. caller: i wanted to see what the gentleman had to say -- we have the illegal immigrants here, and they do the fruit picking and these jobs that supposedly we don't want to do, but they don't , so thelth insurance immigration problem ties in with our health insurance debacle because they clog up the emergency room's, they're not --tributing to that problem contributing to that problem. we have cheap fruit, but our health insurance is skyrocketing.
maybe you could mention something about the balance of that. are exactly the kinds of questions you have to sort out. you remember when president forward, heshing was talking about 45 million people who were uninsured who would be insured. now we're talking about imething like 25 million. say, what is happened to the missing 20 million? here we are undertaking a massive revamping of the health .are program the basic idea of bringing everyone into insurance is something we have compromise to a very serious level. who are these missing 20 million? very likely they are the illegal immigrants who are simply going to be going into the emergency
services and so on. on a really know the details on this are, but i suspect that are goinge people who into the exchanges, many of them don't know how to use a cell phone or go to a website if they are illegal immigrants. many of these illegal immigrants coming in fromd, places like mexico and so on. college, not been to many of them. do they know how to operate in this particular website? they are the ones who are being left out. i have not really looked into this, i must confess. you may be right, but you may not be right, also. we don't know whether these people are still going to be laying down on the health care
on the -- weighing down health care process. host: this is the last call, keith, and on the republican line in new york. to say that the illegal immigrants are taking jobs that americans don't want is just as outrageous as saying that cigarette smoke is good for you. i'm from new york city, and i see firsthand what illegal immigration has done to not only the country, but to african- americans in particular. you cannot find a job right now and housekeeping, and housekeeping,- in and construction, being a busboy. every single job that african- americans used to have are no longer available. , the illegalt immigrants take the jobs that americans would love. this guy is saying that $10 an
hour is low-paid. i'm sure there's millions of people who would love to take a job at $10 an hour. i don't even know where one apple orchard is. to say they're all coming in just to work in the apple fields is hilarious. one day i was coming from work, grand central, 6:00 in the morning. for the first two hours, you did not see anybody get off the train to go to work but illegal immigrants for two hours. i stood there, and not one american got off the train to go to work. it was all mexicans. you cannot find a store with an african-american working. saying that these illegal immigrants are getting low- paying jobs is another hilarious point. i'm a contractor in the state of connecticut. i needed a project done.
i've seen the illegal immigrants where they all hang out. this guy was charging me more than american would have charged me. host: we have to let our guest respond to what you put out there. professor, go ahead. this could very well be the experience in certain communities. i'm not denying that. even in places like connecticut is new york city, it possible to find a lot of blacks actually being employed. way, even the immigrants coming in are setting a good example. inee hardly any black driver a cab. this is not a factory job or a employment.u take this is where you go ahead and
start driving a cab. you ask, why is it -- i've often wondered why i hardly ever see anybody among the black community driving the taxicabs. that is often a way in which you move ahead. it raises other questions about, what do we do for communities that are being left behind, which are not being able to take these jobs. i think it has something to do with the breakdown of the family at -- youave to look take the service sector. service sector, again, structural problems. to be able to function in the front of mcdonald's, you have to be able to turn up on time. you have to dress properly and follow certain conduct.
if you're going to be flipping hamburgers at the back, you can be whatever you want to. move up, you have to really help the harlem to provide these kinds of skills. there's a lot of heavy lifting we need to do in order to help the black community. in ae written on this number of education and labor force related areas. while i sympathize with the comments being made, what we need to do is not just shut off people from coming in but to say, how can we positively enable the black community to participate more in the economic processes.
raising a community by the bootstraps, giving them the boot to be able to do that. with thedish bhagwati council on foreign relations, thank you. segment will deal with the vatican. did you know that the united states sends an ambassador to the vatican? our next guest francis rooney talks about what we are interested in policy wise.
>> this weekend, american history tv looks back at the assassination of jfk and aftermath, with eyewitness accounts, scenes from the president' texas, and commemorative events from dealey plaza and the jfk library and museum. , and at 5:00 eastern 5:45, hugh ainsworth. coverage continues sunday with lyndon johnson's november 27 address to congress. your questions with robert caro and timothy naphtali. . jfk on american history tv this weekend on c- span3.
live inkend, booktv is florida for the miami book fair international. coverage kicks off today at 10:00 eastern on c-span2 with dave barry, and continues with berg,ances by a scott peter baker, and susan herman. sunday's coverage starts at thomas cahilludes and chris matthews. the miami book fair, live this weekend on booktv on c-span2. on ourorget to weigh in n bookclub question. what books are you reading on -- november book club question. what books are you reading on jfk? host: joining us is francis rooney, the author of "the
global vatican" and former u.s. ambassador to the holy see from 2005 to 2008. your title says ambassador to the holy see. what's the difference? guest: the sovereignty lies with , which is the locus of the authority of the influence of the church in the world, represented by the pope and the different constituent organizations of the holy see. the vatican was granted to the holy see in 1989. as far as your position as ambassador, why do we have such a position in the first place? guest: one of the main purposes of the book is to explain the historic, diplomatic role of the holy see and what they have been able to accomplish, and show why
it is important for the u.s. to have a diplomatic relationship with them. they have a strong alignment with our fundamental founding principles. ir diplomacy is based on human dignity. we have an ally to work together to leverage our principles in dealing with governments around the world, oppression around the world, disease in africa. when you go and present yourself to the pope, who do you talk to about policy issues and who helps you discuss about policy issues? has a the holy see secretary of state, which is organized like our department of state. who areeople under him experts in different groups of countries, the same way the state department has desk officers raid -- officers.
host: as far as your day-to-day dealings with them, talk about some of the policies you are coming forth for representing the united states -- how did that work, as far as working with the vatican and the holy see? host: first and foremost was iraq. i went to meet pope benedict. i had to bring up the subject of iraq. turned the page and said, mr. ambassador, there's been enough said about iraq. it's time to bring peace and stability to the people there. we worked on other issues, such as combating human trafficking, aligning the holy see's security -- work. it far
pope benedict continued to speak out strongly against the harsh comments in 2005 and 2006, spoke as anainst using religion excuse for violence, coming to terms with radical islam. host: our guest is former ambassador to the holy see, residing in the vicinity of the vatican. your questions for francis rooney about the position and what he does and the u.s. callests at the vatican -- using the numbers on your screen. you can tweak your questions or comments, or e-mail us. your questions or
comments, or e-mail us. how did you end up with a position? guest: george bush appointed me. it is usually around 35% of the president's ambassadorial appointments are people like me. a post like the holy see, which is dependent on the priorities of the president, lends itself to an employee. host: are there other countries with ambassadors to the holy see ? guest: it is one of the broadest diplomatic representations in the world. diplomats have been sent to the holy see since the 1950's. host: what is day-to-day like? guest: the role of the u.s.
ambassador to the holy see is similar to any ambassador to a secular bilateral mission. communicating about american policy interest in trying to work with them to advance those interests in the normal diplomatic intercourse, if you will. speaking in the host country about what america stands for, which for me was a great opportunity to speak about the first amendment, our unique first amendment, and our unique melting pot. you just had a gentleman on about immigration. the concept of sovereignty in is based on lineage. our concept of citizenship is based on what you do for america. host: how many times did you meet the pope at that time? guest: twice a year. host: what were those meetings
like? how long do they last? guest: the beginning long meeting was about 40 minutes, and i had another meeting with him about 15, 20 minutes wait her. -- 20 minutes. there is next change of pleasantries, five-minute or three-minute discussion about whatever topical issue is forefront between that country and the holy see at the time. you have talked about america's interests. what were responses when you brought up these issues, whether it be iraq or other issues? this inhere's a lot of the book. the relationship with president bush was strong because of the alignment of his personal and political philosophies, and the fundamental principles of the holy see. i had a great climate for conducting diplomacy.
my predecessors and successors had it more difficult because of different priorities. the the president of nuclear arrangement in 2006 with india, we had a constructive discussion. forholy see calls elimination of nuclear weapons and for disarmament. we focused the dialogue more on nonproliferation. we worked on many situations in latin america where we could link together to speak up against the more authoritarian governments we have seen rise up in the last 10 or 12 years. host: the book is "the global vatican." bob is up first on our independent line. wondering overen the last couple of weeks since a hurricane or typhoon hit the philippines, and knowing that the philippines is a catholic country, they basically were set up as a catholic country just like the united states was back
in the 15th century. helped set vatican up the united states. vaticanothing about the opening up their bank and helping out down there. i'm sure they're going to rebuild the church is down there, because they have to fill them back up so they can get more money back in their. what does the vatican say about all these bad priests that are going around doing what they're doing? in the philippines, i'm sure we will see the constituent catholic relief agencies involved. they were there in haiti when there were the horrible earthquakes, as well is a and unitedrders states. he did not elaborate, but he talked about bad priests. the u.s.e scandal and
and some parts of western europe may have impacted the influence of the holy see diplomatically, but not a whole lot. many of the areas where religious freedom and human dignity are most at risk politically are areas far removed from the abuse scandals in the u.s. the fundamental principles of the holy see diplomacy is on an entirely different plane than the unfortunate conduct that is been exhibited amongst some priests in the u.s. host: darlene from indiana, democrats' line. church.i go to i left church. badle keep mentioning priests. there is bad in all churches. but why do you not bring the church back into school like it was when i went to school? if you don't believe in god, that is their issue. they have more rights than we do. catholics should be brought back into school.
any religion, as long as it's god, should be brought back into school. guest: one of the two pillars of pope benedict's diplomacy has been to oppose the rise of secularism in the west, and to of times examples where religion and morality become attenuated in everyday life of citizens and in government architectures of various countries seems to undermine the stability of those governments or the ability of those governments to stay focused on justice and freedom come and sometimes they become authoritarian. we have many bad instances of that in the history of the world. it is to make sure that more values, and the institutionalization that religion can bring to the impact of morality and moral principles in government is an important issue. host: what you think about pope
francis, especially statements he has made about homosexuality, and statements he made about social welfare issues? how did he compare to benedict? guest: as a person from the new world like all of us, i'm excited to have a pope from the new world who is free from some of the eurocentric baggage that has been part of the historical culture of every preceding pope. he's talking about reforming the curia, which is a good idea, too -- the lastrchical pails of monarchism into the holy see and bring it into a modern governments architecture. -- governance architecture. i'm hoping the latin pope will be able to use the social justice platform he put forth to call for a more people centric foreign policy in latin america, which is based on providing education and employment and betterment to the people,
therefore building a stable building block for future democracy. host: how much do degree -- agree about his statements on helmick -- homosexuality? i think he is seeing a good thing, let's not have the entire discussion in the church focused on a few issues. if we believe in the separation of church and state, why have ambassador to the holy see? guest: this mission has nothing to do with church. this mission has to do with the diplomatic impact that the holy see can have, and to leverage the fundamental principles important in our foreign policy as well as their diplomacy. we have other ambassadorships to other religious institutions? guest: no. there is no other religious institution that has been perceived as a sovereign.
has been perceived as a sovereign nation for 1200 years, even though it lacks territory and a hegemon us agenda. agenda.oneous host: the book is "the global vatican," written by francis rooney. mark is from fort phil, north dakota on the republican line. about: the guest talked iraq and islamic extremism. experts agree that the majority of the islamic extremism and terrorism that comes from it in andes like iraq and syria north africa and pakistan, it's , form of neofascism particularly a sect known as wahhabism.
june 6, 23 in a senate judiciary saidttee, chairman jon kyl the problem we are looking at today is the state-sponsored and funding of an extremist ideology that provides recruiting grounds, support, and money.ure, he is a republican. chuck schumer said the same the saudi government must repudiate wahhabism. host: what would you like our guest to address? guest: why doesn't the holy see encourage american leaders to go to the source of extremism, which is the saudi government that finances terrorism and extremist schools all over the world? guest: that's a great comment. you need to read my book.
moreholy see has spoken up clearly and aggressively than most elected officials about the impact of the sunni shiite, the intractable hatred and lies in the schism between sunnis and shiites as well as the wahhabism spreading too hereto for secular areas of north africa. we are reaping the fruits now of .0 years of radical madrasahs it is a serious problem. it is a serious problem to try to reconcile the sunni-shiite situation trade that is one of the reasons the holy see -- si tuation. that is one of the reasons the holy see -- caller: hello. gentlemanering if the
could tell me whether he thinks that pope francis, who seems to be very progressive, will he granted audience with a group of native americans who have been trying to get an audience with the appleoncerning rule that was declaring -- papal ale that was the clearing right for taking over their lands because they were not christian, their lands could be taken over. do you think this will ever happen with the pope we have now? guest: it's a little above my pay grade to answer a question like that, not being directly involved with pope francis's diplomacy at this point. you look at the things you said about social justice and humanity. he's a new world pope who is much more accustomed to indigenous peoples and the kind
of melting pot that characterizes the western hemisphere. you have to figure the conditions are more likely for access. where is the u.s. embassy at the vatican? guest: it is on the circus maximus. it is the place where most christians were martyred. the "nationals of catholic reporter" say there is debate from moving the embassy to the u.s. embassy in italy. guest: there is. the u.s. embassy bought a large building back in president bush's first term. build itan effort to up. there are some issues with our building. there is a legitimate argument about security. i have mentioned in that article to john allen that there is a
risk of diminution of the prestige and influence of our mission there to co-locate on embassy grounds. it would be better if the government feels that in the need tobenghazi that we harden up the building. there's a lot of opportunities to read something different. there's a nominal cost difference coul. host: you don't think it is a discounting of a perception as far as the vatican and holy see? guest: i fear the code location could become a diminution of its -- co-location could become a diminution of its influence. c-span has to have its own studio. when you don't have your own building, you're kind of opening yourself up to being ignored and marginalized. guest: our guest is the ambassador to the holy see from 2005 to 2008.
"the global vatican" is the title of that book. he is talking about his oferiences at the perception the united states having a position there. lineler is on a democrat's from tennessee. caller: doesn't separation of church and state means schools, the separation of church from schools, church from government buildings? isn't that what the separation is supposed to be? i think kids are going to school to learn math, english, history. they're not going there to learn god. that is what church for. it should be separated. they should change the pledge of allegiance to one nation under all gods and all beliefs. that would be justice for all. guest: you're hitting on an
issue that runs throughout america right now. not a week goes by that we don't see something written or said about the role of prayer in schools, and the role of religion in the government. i go back to what i said in the book, that secularism is a dangerous trend because one religion and morals are too attenuated from the daily life of citizens, bad things can happen in government. there is a high correlation between religiosity and morality and good behaviors like civic activity, good parenting, and things like that. there are many examples in history where religion is confined to what takes place in a building and becomes divorced from the average behavior of people. the first amendment constitution says the government will not establish a religion, but it also says it won't do anything to abridge the free expression of religion.
people like me who argue for a role in the pledge of allegiance for one nation under god or in teaching religion to children is under the side of freedom to express religion and make sure religion has a broad role in civil society. host: what was your day job before this? guest: running a construction company. i'm going back to it. we have a team that is been in the family. i staffed up to rome for three years. i left the team intact. worldwidef catholics in the united states. that according to the pew research center. number ofthe catholics in united states as is theworldwide, what
influence of the catholic church in the united states as it currently stands? guest: the historic, deep religiosity and focus on family which is in the latin culture is a huge opportunity for the church and a huge opportunity for our country to reinforce our dedication on the sounding principles of human dignity, religious freedom, family, and willingness to oppose the state when it encroaches. 11 people that i know i'm a which is many of them -- the latin people that i know, which is many of them, are vigorous in defending their individual rights and liberty and those of their family against government encroachment. host: a viewer is asking you about the poetic position -- diplomatic position. guest: the vatican is signatory to most important international agreements.
their unofficial observer at the u.n. u.n.rent constituent agencies, including agricultural organizations in rome. a starkly, they have signed some of the most important treaties throughout history. , they humanitarian area are particularly useful with working with constituencies. caller: good morning. in the previous section on immigration, a caller from california spoke the actual truth. the professor from columbia said the caller telling the truth had a misconception. people prefer vice to virtue, and they want truth also to be a misconception. love and is, god is god is truth.
also that 70,000 people saw the miracle of the sun in 1917. the rejected message as well as the miracle is a truth. is, repent and believe the good, good news. host: what would you like our guest to address? caller: when i heard all of the comments on the previous callers , this was a revelation to me that people -- reject god, love, and truth. to reinforce the common sense and truth and love , andhe is talking about additionally, is necessary in this country. i'm not sure if you're
responding to the previous guest's question about immigration or diplomacy of the holy see, but they are related to the fundamental principle of protection of human dignity and spread of freedom. immigration discussion that was held earlier and that interesting idea that the professor from columbia has, i read that article on foreign affairs a few weeks ago. the right to a concept of nurturing human dignity and protecting the individual rights of people. host: what is the current administration's current relationship with the holy see?> guest: it is no secret there have been some positions taken by the administration that the church seriously disagrees with, recently with the insurance feelte, which many people tends to undermine the first amendment religious freedom. despite that, there are many areas where the holy see and
u.s. continue to work together. programs about trafficking and people seeking to impose that governments, things like that. i wish the obama administration would see despite this to domestic,- the political things, there are many areas where we can continue to leverage our common interests. i wish it were less attenuated than it is. i'm hopeful here in the final few years a president obama's presidency that he will deploy the secretary of state, state department to leverage the holy see's voice in these fundamental principles of religious freedom, human unity, opposing autocratic governments. host: are you saying that the vatican and holy see has taken a position on what we are doing with the affordable care act? cardinals in the u.s. have taken a strong position on the affordable care act.
that is probably caused -- i would assume that's part of the chill and lack of enthusiasm for engaging the holy see on the part of the administration. george bush had a huge administration for working with the holy see. this administration has been a bit more reticent. host: is there an ambassador currently? guest: there is. wasame from baltimore, involved with catholic charities for many years, knows his way around the vatican. i'm hopeful. we have a new pub, a new ambassador, and a country -- p ope, a new ambassador, and a country based on the same principles. relatesmy question further back. 1991, december 25, the soviet union fell.
willsecular historians attribute that to ronald reagan's economic doctrine. if you could articulate, what is and position on john paul's the fall of the soviet union? guest: you will really enjoy the book. i put a lot of things in there about this critical time for the and the unique parallel activity of ronald reagan, margaret thatcher, and he holy see. it is a recent highlight of holy see the nomadic activity, culminating with a quote from which says, everything that happened in eastern europe would have been impossible without the pope. john paul went to poland in 1979
and wanted to go to the shipyard. the man said no. he said, i'm going to leave and make an international incident. solidarity,enthused and the rest is history. he went back if you years later saidfew years later and poland is one great big concentration cap -- camp. the uniques to stature of the holy see is a soft power player without a territorial agenda, and not needing to take credit for what they do. there's is no doubt that john paul played a huge role in the ending of communism. i hope you enjoy that part of the book. host: robert is on the democrats' line in brooklyn, new york. the ambassador made reference to an erroneous connection between religion and morality. have number of studies
shown that atheists are ms. -- underrepresented in the prison population and are massively overrepresented among scientists, especially in a .ational academy of scientists if religion is necessary former elegy, the academy of scientists ought to be a pack of rapists, thieves, and murderous. how does the ambassador account for this? religion has played a role and can play a role in institutionalizing and organizing the application of moral principles in a society, but it's not necessarily the exclusive role. fundamental principle is that you have to have good moral principles as a foundation for justice. host: our guest with us for a few more minutes. robert from new york. here is mary from pennsylvania, republican line. mary, are you there?
my question is, uighurs so much about everyone else's rights. if you are a single person and you can have six kids, you are being rewarded. systems no reward anymore for being a married couple trying to make it and do the right thing. you get married, you have children. so have the kids first, it is a distraction of the family. -- destruction of the family. i was raised catholic. i saw they have let that ball drop. now it is so out of control that were trying to figure a way out of this big mess. guest: i think your question
should be directed to a cleric or the social agenda or domestic agenda of the administration. is dealing with the diplomatic engagement of the holy see and u.s. i think it's more of a domestic policy question. host: what was your greatest accomplishment during your term? guest: we helped shape the iraq debate. i also like to think that we advanced understanding of the linkage between the u.s. and holy see in the area of human , the catholic organizations in africa. 27% of all aids patients are dealt with in catholic institutions. , formerancis rooney ambassador to the holy see and author of "the global vatican." thank you for your time.
on tomorrow's program, you will hear from george sore neck -- zornick. at 8:30, michael barone, the author of "shaping our nation." still is the former executive director of the health insurance authority, a lot a people tying that's what you currently see with the affordable care act and principles they're put on the national stage. we will talk about what is happening on his state's level and take your questions as well and 9:15. "washington journal" starts tomorrow at 7:00 a.m.. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
>> today nsa program. hearing on digital currencies that allow people to exchange real goods and services without using real money. then the security of the health care law website. >> this weekend, american history television looks back at the assassination of jfk and its aftermath with eyewitness accounts, scenes from the president's to texas and commemorative event with the daley plaza and commemorative events.